Category Archives: Future of Architecture

Perspectives of Enterprising, Architecture & Systems

Enterprising

This blog post deals with the summer school of week 31. The summer school dealt with the theme of “enterprising” which literally means anything from Enterprise Architecture, Viable Systems Models and technologies related to the systems development.

Sally Bean introduced concepts of Enterprise Architecture and systems thinking, and likewise did Patrick Hoverstadt introduced us to his particular perspective on systems thinking and Enterprise Architecture.

After the introduction of various participants in the summer school it could be concluded that a lot of different profiles attended the summer school. E.g. some had a background theological sciences, some had a background in childcare, some had a background in communication and some had a background in informatics and business administration.

Sally Bean started her presented with data on what her views of Enterprise Architecture is all about. From her presentation I noted a quotation about her views on The Open Group’s idea on what Enterprise Architecture is all about.

Sally Bean: “TOGAF is a body of knowledge but also a framework”.

During the first two hours we discussed the concept of Enterprise Architecture, the problems with Enterprise Architecture and the barriers facing the concept of Enterprise Architecture.

During the first session of the summer school the participants defined the following words (keywords) that would be dealt with during the Enterprise Architecture Summer Camp:

  1. Selling.
  2. Defining.
  3. Doing.
  4. Understanding.
  5. Pragmatic.

Patrick Hoverstadt made some interesting comments on what Enterprise Architecture should be all about, and how systems works in their own ways. One of these remarks have been quoted below.

Hoverstadt: “People think and says a lot about systems but they rarely practice them. You can make the hole system more viable by “enabling” the individual VSM segments of the enterprise one by one to become sustainable and thereby ultra stabile”.

Perspectives on EA – A Conversation

A keynote by Sally Bean.

Context is really important to EA. Sally Bean is of the opinion that the various practitioners in the U.S. and G.B. have an IT background. Sally Bean has a background in IT. She has a background with working for the ministry of Defense and changed to working for British Airways’ department for operational research, and after she had joined the IT department, she joined the Enterprise Architecture group.

For about 10 years she worked with synthesizing a framework. In this regard Sally Bean stated “that you would need a mixture of theory and practice”.

From 2002 she dropped B.A. and went on consulting and as a result of this she was one of the founders of Enterprise Architects Anonymous.

She went on studying systems thinking and the Viable Systems Model, and as such she later experienced at a conference while speaking on other things than IT-oriented Enterprise Architecture that persons started to say it was wonderful to hear about EA in a non-IT related issue.

She went on presenting the fundamental model that Doucet et al (2009) presented. According to Sally Bean and John Gotze the focus was that quite a few do the embedded architecture but more and more practitioners and organizations works with the extended approach to Enterprise Architecture.

Sally Bean confirmed the assumption that all enterprises have an architecture even in conditions and contexts where electricity is a limited commodity.

Challenges that the Enterprise Architecture Community Faces

Sally Bean mentioned and ranked the challenges that faces the Enterprise Architecture community about it.

  • Diversity, but the concept is to improve coherence, but the concept of Enterprise Architecture is rather diverse.
  • Language and metaphor deals with that the Enterprise Architects and “ordinary” architects don’t do the same job the same way. They don’t architect the same way.
  • Enterprises are more complex and embody a much stronger human dimension. Sally Bean was of the opinion that buildings aren’t a good metaphor for organizations.

According to Sally Bean then Enterprise Architects works with:

  1. Map out change programmes.
  2. Designing frameworks and meta models.
  3. Business process management and re-designing.

From this part of the presentation Hoverstadt and Gotze had some rather interesting comments. Both of their comments (not directly quoted) have been included in the paragraph below.

According to Patrick Hoverstadt it appears that John Zachman has created a taxonomy for the enterprise. John Gotze talked about a conversation he and others had with John Zachman where Zachman had exclaimed: It is a framework, what you chose to do with it is up to you.

Architecture was defined by Sally Bean as:

  1. “A non-linear process of enquiry, exploration and design.
  2. Clear understanding of context.
  3. Key principles required to achieve and maintain coherency, guiding design decision with an eye on the future.
  4. A set of models that enable visualization and exploration of different perspectives on the situation.
  5. The ability to identify common patterns and ways of reproducing or avoiding them.
  6. An ultimate result that is pleasing and inspiring to the user and is capable of evolving gracefully over time.”

Sally Bean: “You don’t do bricolage on your chassis. Needless to say I believe this happens quite a few times in the lifespan of an organization in order to cope with the challenges and crisis that occurs in the environment of the organization.”

According to Sally Bean Enterprise Architecture is a bled of different types of activities e.g. prescriptive activities (which is named city planning), descriptive activities (e.g. blueprinting) and programmatic (that is named RoadMaps).

Descriptive activities are providing information, ensuring ownership, audience, and adds value to be understood.

Prescriptive that provides direction and guidance to be widely communicated and supported by governance procedures.

Programmatic activities coordinate architecture dependencies.

Sally Bean argued that the construction of a business map might improve the Enterprise Architecture governance. Map the important parts and challenge your views on the matter. Sally Bean defined herself as a corporate architect (not as an enterprise architect). This might be a question of terminology but in the end it has a significant impact on how to define roles for any Enterprise Architecture group. Sally Bean argued that the top segments on the model were the most important segments to deal with. E.g. the most important persons are in top of the diagram.

It depends on where from you interpreter it, and there are no right or wrong answers. According to Sally Bean there is no wrong in having the principles in the prescriptive.

Likewise are standards closer to the standards than to any of the other parts of the three major categories.

Target architecture is some sort of a future state of where “we” are heading like the to-be architecture is to what Bernard (2005) says. From this point of view it can be concluded that the statements presented by Sally Bean are supported by other theorists that have worked with the concept of Enterprise Architecture.

Where the artifacts go depends on what the analyst (or in this case the enterprise architect) thinks it is for. This is the views that Sally Bean promotes in her keynote at the first day. According to Sally Bean “the Enterprise Architecture team does not maintain all the content, but provides the framework, structure and governance to ensure that it’s self-consistent and accurate” – slide 23.

Sally Bean presented four different approaches to Enterprise Architecture e.g. horizontal EA, vertical EA, multi-enterprise EA and ‘Whole-enterprise’ EA.

  • Horizontal EA that promotes enterprise-wide coherence in a particular domain (process, information and technology). The domain can consist of many other forms of components.
  • Vertical EA that deals with approach to large programmes or thematic challenges. In this particular view the business changes and IT systems are vertically coherent across the scope of the programme.
  • Multi-enterprise EA deals with organizations try to organize into collaborative clusters e.g. forming common standards for interoperability. Sally Bean did also indicate that the clusters might collaborate in order to achieve common services.
  • ‘Whole-enterprise’ EA deals with organizations establish governance policies, and it works as a framework and it deals with artifacts to promote a sort of incremental achievement of horizontal and vertical coherence.

Sally Bean pointed out three forms of complexity e.g. structural complexity, dynamic complexity and human complexity. All of the three forms of complexities that are available in an enterprise will impact the one another.

The living company that is a book dealing with the Shell Oil company. The book deals with the characteristics of long lasting companies. We where encouraged to acquire this book in order to understand how the long lasting enterprises could deal with the problems over time.

Patrick Hoverstadt pointed out that the concept of modeling is rather “freaky” compared to other forms of corporate discipline. Since the financial department, the human resource department or other departments clearly don’t know what or how the model impacts them or what models they make use of in order to do their job.

Sally Bean made use of a quotation that stated “all models are wrong, but some are useful” (Box). I assume that the quotation originates from a book, article or blog post by a person named Box (surname).

From an ontological point of view models aim to represent things in the real world, and from an epistemological models are mental learning devices to explore ideas about the real world. These two claims originates from Checkland.

Sally Bean have met various different stakeholders in various enterprises that in one way or the other thinks that Enterprise Architecture is a project which in many cases could turn out to become a rather dangerous view on how the enterprise can be governed.

Sally Bean: “You really got to fall back on your theory”.

There have been many different perspectives of what Enterprise Architecture is about, as such I feel that Enterprise Architecture is about facilitating the enterprise-wide ontological model.

Cynefin Sense-Making Framework

Deals with how the analyst can deal with the concept of complex systems and find information.
The problem with the simplistic view of the world sees the world as a group of IT and business process management. They usually sees the world as rather simple and they can through their simple models turn the world into something rather chaotic.

You can’t apply a simple process to something that is rather complex, and if there is no process what so ever then it is quite clear that the problem can’t be dealt with in that way. Sally Bean claims that in a complex world it is better to tell people what not to do instead of telling them what to do.

If it becomes too complex (also with IT e.g. with amount of data, features or processes) the system flips over and the systems become too complex to deal with.

Day Two

This is the second day of the summer school on Enterprise Architecture. There where two topics the day. The first one was dealing with the Viable Systems Model (management cybernetics) and the second one was about Enterprise Architecture repositories.

The Viable Systems Model a Keynote by Patrick Hoverstadt

The system is partially based upon a workshop where the different participants works with different approach to organization design. Thereto did Patrick Hoverstadt talk about the “Mosaic” change method.

Patrick Hoverstadt: “Enterprise Architecture is a fairly new discipline and I fairly don’t see any science in it, it is rather pragmatic. It is like IT specification on steroids”.

From a systems point of view Patrick Hoverstadt claims one of the differences between Enterprise Architecture and Systems (in particular the Viable Systems Model) works is that EA focus on “Architecture” of the enterprise where the VSM is about identifying the architecture of the organization.

Enterprise Architecture is a kind of taxonomy framework but it isn’t a good framework in order to deal with complexity.

Gotze had an interesting insight into the particular issue that was discussed. His view on the matter dealt with how the data (artifacts) are usually dealt with in the Enterprise Architecture Program.

John Gotze: “I think it is about being complicated instead of complex”.

Patrick Hoverstadt: “Systems thinking has a long history and a very strong theoretical base, perhaps too strong, we got stuck with academics who controls the theory but can’t practice it. One of the big differences is that it is a relatively simple model for handling complex systems. The models are specifically designed in order to handle complexity. Things that ‘we’ have in common is modeling, and we have the issue of why we have to model organizations”.

Patrick Hoverstadt claims that the ability to manage an organization is about how well we are able to plan it.

With this in mind the idea of systems thinking and cybernetics where discussed. From the discussion the history of cybernetics where discussed, or rather it was discussed in briefly.

Systems thinking has always been a multidisciplinary system and as such it has always tried to embrace different perspectives. One of the things that came out of the “Macey Conferences” lead to the establishment of the concept and paradigm of Cybernetics. The entire foundation for Cybernetics comes from the design principles of anti-aircraft missile guidance systems that introduced the concept of circular feedback systems. It was for the first time that circular logics where introduced.

The introduction of Cybernetics changed the entire world of science due to the feedback and the concept of how feedback is dealt with in the long run.

Pragmatism

The relation to VSM and Enterprise Architecture has to be based on pragmatism. From the pragmatic point of view VSM can enable Enterprise Architects to modeling large complex enterprises quickly.

The integration of information structures to business structures. One of the major issues for IT is that you can take information and separated from what the information was all about. E.g. separated the risk from the asset, and as such people lost sense of what it was. The overall claim of this was stated by Patrick Hoverstadt.

Information should not lose the meaning. Information is about the activities. It is so important and it is a necessity to make track of.

John Gotze pointed out that TOGAF (as in the The Open Group’s Framework for Enterprise Architecture) discusses the issues of capability.

One of the main arguments for this was about Enterprise Architecture is a “meta-strategic” discipline and that information (in theory) design drives decision and as such should architecture drive corporate strategy.

The Conant Law was based on that teams that builds IT systems builds the systems as reflections of themselves so people should be build IT systems that reflects the IT systems.

Patrick Hoverstadt: “It is at least as true that the information system will detect strategy as strategies will detect information systems and as such this should lead to that Enterprise Architecture is a meta-strategic discipline”.

Kune Brodersen: “I hope that isn’t the case due to that would lead to that if we don’t have a strategy then let’s go and look at IT systems in order to understand what we lacks”.

Patrick Hoverstadt: “Unless we design our information systems for the executives to make decisions, they will make short-term decisions, and they will make decisions based on feelings, and in short it will be bad decisions. [….] I would say there is at least a credible argument for that EA is more than just a servant of strategy”.

From there Patrick Hoverstadt went on to discuss five case studies that he has been involved with in order to create sense through the Viable Systems Model. The first case study he talked about he mapped an information system (or systems for the IS-department) to the Viable Systems Model and a result of that was that the IS-department could be consolidated from being a lot of different Information Systems Architecture.

The second case study that Patrick Hoverstadt presented was Stafford Beer’s socio – economic project in Chili (during the Allende period) where he tried to implement the Viable Systems Model on a national scale. Stafford Beer went to Chili to map the socio-economic structure onto a Viable Systems Model and he was able to design a centralized function to cope with data. The project was introduced and implemented in months and it covered most of the big industries of Chili. According to Patrick Hoverstadt the scale was dramatic and it was way too fast.
Patrick Hoverstadt: “It went too fast, I don’t think it would be able to be implemented on that scale with that speed today due to technology has become way too complicated”. As such the technology used in the experiment was rather simply and rather stabile.

From the VSM point of view you would have to find out what is the gap between the need and the current state.

There will be problems if people don’t have access to the right information in order to take decisions on an informed platform. From this particular insight a kind of discussion between Hoverstadt and Gotze took place. Parts of this discussion is presented below.

Patrick Hoverstadt: “If you can rewire a country in six months, you should be able to do things quickly in organizations”.

Another example made that Patrick Hoverstadt presented was that a person in a large British Telecom operator had developed an IT model based upon the VSM model and as such he was able to understand the shape of the enterprise in a matter minutes through life feeds connected directly to the model.

John Gotze: “We have a case in Denmark, the Danish Tax-administration’s first approach to EA developed a hugh repository, but he was really bad communicating, so the decision takers were unaware of it. When they got a new management the architecture team changed they sort of forgot about it”.

Patrick Hoverstadt: “Half the time people don’t know what is happening. Scary isn’t it”.

Questions for the Workshop

  1. It is a problem that the decision makers don’t have a suitable overview of the enterprise when they are about to make decisions?
  2. If that is a part of the role that EA is playing, where does that leave us all? Is it an advantage? How do you go to the strategists to sell EA?

For the first question: In most enterprises strategy isn’t done well and as such this can lead be optimized. I can only speak on behalf on my own points of view and as such I think it really depends on where you are located in the organization, your personal aura and reputation. Likewise does it depend on the organization and its decision makers. From my point of view the wish for EA has to come from the inside of the enterprise.
Nonetheless the best answer I have for this particular situation would be to do EA instead of selling it. Develop products and show the success-rate of them to the board of directors, and through that show that the success can be coupled directly to the successful project.

For the second question: As I have mentioned earlier. It make no sense to sell Enterprise Architecture, it literally makes no sense since the concept is “intangible”, and the concept is to diversified for any one (even practitioners) to know what is really about. Instead sell the concept as a platform for executing strategic it-based business projects.

Qualiware” by Kuno Brodersen

Kuno Brodersen is the chief executive officer (CEO) of Qualiware. His contribution to the summer school was how the repositories could be made use of in order to achieve a greater insight of what happens in the enterprise.

Kuno started out with his hypothesis that the Enterprise Architecture Program to some degree can help shape the enterprise’s ontology. The concept of ontology would have to be dealt with through a series of attempts to document the enterprise’s architecture.

Kuno Brodersen: “You as an Enterprise Architect would have to tell the company how to do enterprise ontology”.

Kuno later presented us for the ATP’s approach to an Enterprise Architecture Program that dealt with handling more than a 170 repositories for their entire enterprise.

Kuno Brodersen: “ATP that is located about three miles down the road (pointing in a certain direction) has about 170 repositories for their enterprise architecture e.g. for legacy systems, systems etc.”

Later in the presentation Kuno begain talking about what Gartner Group would recommend in the future, and from that perspective Kuno started to talk about Cloud computing and Enterprise Architecture repositories.

Kuno Brodersen: “Gartner predicts that the top-10 strategic technology areas for 2011 will be 1) cloud computing […...]”.

With this in mind Kuno started to talk about how the customers would like to publish their Enterprise Architecture repositories online e.g. through the cloud in order to share their knowledge with the rest of the enterprise. Furthermore did Kuno identify the problem with searching in large amount of information that for example appears in an Enterprise Architecture related repository.

Kuno Brodersen: “What we see at our customers is that when they wanted to publish their models on enterprise architecture they have found out that text-string search isn’t a good way to identify artifacts. We simply don’t think in text-strings. Instead you can point on e.g. sales assistants as a role or profile you can get the information that you need. If you as an enterprise architect will be able to communicate it way better to the stakeholders in the enterprise by applying a hierarchical model (based on organizational hierarchy) and through the tag structure is in the architecture. You would already have considered that while you designed your Enterprise Architecture model”.

Furthermore did Kuno Brodersen emphasize how important it is to ensure a good user experience, and through that enable the user to find the information that he or she needs in order to find the information that is of importance. Kuno told us that Qualiware has written their own framework that he thinks is more sophisticated than Zachman’s approach to frameworks. He states this in the quotation below.

Kuno Brodersen: “Here we got the Qualiware enterprise architecture framework, well we also have one, we found out that anyone out there had one so we developed one ourself. See the fantastic icons? Why don’t any one apply the Zachman framework? Because it is so ugly! If you present this to c-level executives you will get a different answer each and every time. There are entirely different perspective you will have depending on who you ask. Do we want to have a high level business process in your company? Why is the process there and what do you need to execute this process? Do we want to know who is responsible for this process then you would have to capture that relationship, and when you do so, you would have to adapt your mental model. It might differ overtime.”

Later Kuno presented his ideas on “gamification” of the Enterprise Architecture repository in order to analyze who in the enterprise, or might not make use of the EA repository and to engage the various stakeholders. As such it seems like an interesting idea, but it would have to be implemented in an enterprise with the right culture, where the various stakeholders thinks that they have the surplus of time to “play the game” in order to gain a better understanding of how the enterprise works.

Kuno Brodersen: “It makes the managers able to set up a treasure hunt in order to make the various stakeholders smarter on what is going on in the enterprise”.

Furthermore did Kuno point of which particular approach to documentation of the enterprise’s architecture, that he felt would accelerate the Enterprise Architecture Program.

Kuno Brodersen:” Start the process will identifying key meta-model components. [….] then you should develop a little EA framework for each of the different stakeholders. Then find out the cost drivers for each of the changes identified and then be aware of your sources and check your data. Then you have to figure out how to present/communicate your findings to the management”.

Day Three

Today we celebrate the garden of pure ideology, or rather that Chris Potts presented his views on the market driven approach to Enterprise Architecture. The concept of working with several different approaches to enterprise architecture and its access to the market.

Enterprise Architecture and Business Ecology by Chris D. Potts

Some of the content that has been presented before at other keynotes, but this time it is in another context. Chris started the keynote by presenting himself as a corporate strategist that has adapted some of the concepts of Enterprise Architecture in order to develop better plans and change the organizations according to the plans.

Chris D. Potts: “I am a corporate strategist, and not truly an Enterprise Architect. [….] and the subtitle was how IT consumerise everything. [...] Enterprise Architecture is about 25 years old next year due to the first time John Zachman thought of it. In other words the concept of Enterprise Architecture is a rather young discipline”.

During the presentation Chris presented some interesting views on how the enterprise’s architecture is connected to many different sub systems and how these systems should be focused on what happens outside the enterprise in order to create value. From this perspective he started to talk about ecosystems, which is a classical discipline within the school of management cybernetics.

Chris D. Potts: “Ecosystems are about organisms and how they interact with the world. In a sense the markets are also ecosystems where we, the organisms, interact with one another. Many people want to create an abstract thing instead of saying what it is about (the ecosystem)”.

Furthermore did Chris talk about how businesses that deal with their ecosystems would be able to compete on better terms (by creating some sort of advantages) than businesses that didn’t. The ecosystems are according to Chris the Alpha and Omega.

Chris D. Potts: “Businesses that looks on what happens in the ecosystems will do better every time, compared to the businesses that neglects their ecosystems”.

One of the major changes in the ecosystems of which enterprises operate is that the consumers have taken the lead on using information technology. Back in the day where Chris D. Potts worked with hospital services (around 1987) the focus was on big Enterprise IT-oriented Systems where the consumers perhaps had a personal computer that was able to deal with word-processing and spreadsheets.

Chris D. Potts introduced four different concepts based on individual words e.g. Business, Ecology, Enterprise and Architecture each of the words have different meanings and can be dealt with in order to gain an understanding of how the various elements of Enterprise Architecture and business ecology is all about.

Thereto did Chris Potts introduce ideas on how to deal with the concept of the enterprise. The concept of the enterprise is up for evaluation and all of a sudden Mr. Potts brought up the Sydney Opera House into consideration.

Business ecosystems or what Chris D. Potts argues is the market ecosystems should be considered an overall framework for which the enterprise and its architecture system.

From this perspective the “market architecture” as Chris D. Potts named it deals with the concept by approaching the concept of customer experience.

Likewise are there three minor architectures that Chris D. Potts believe have to be addressed e.g. the technologies architecture, the knowledge architecture and the processes architecture that all have to be connected to the business architecture.

The development of the technologies and the economics by outsourcing the processes to other countries have triggered the development of the virtual enterprise. The virtual enterprise ensures that the boundaries of the enterprise goes beyond the the “old” conceptual model of the enterprise into the value chain and supply chain of the enterprise. In this particular case I consider the concept of value chain as a concept dealing with how the enterprise value where the concept of the supply chain management is build upon the concept of get resources to produce a particular product (physical) or service. Due to the virtual enterprise the concept of Enterprise Architecture would eventually evolve into the extended Enterprise Architecture (which might be in a conflict with EA) or Enterprise Chain Architecture.

Chris D. Potts: “Nonetheless buildings can’t be changed but buildings are not enterprises”.

The above mentioned quote can act as an indicator for that Chris D. Potts has reached a level of understanding of Enterprise Architecture that is equal to the ideas that Herzum presented in his paper for about eight years ago. From this point of view the enterprise can’t be changed in the instant of a second or for that matter a week or a month. The idea on how to deal with rewiring the organization.

This pretty much concluded the keynote for today and we went on with a presentation by Patrick Hoverstadt.

Some Core Systems Ideas by Patrick Hoverstadt

Systems Methodology is one of the origins of the stuff that was presented during this presentation. The relevance to Enterprise Architecture is on some points a bit blurred but it should according to Patrick Hoverstadt this presentation organization design might benefit from it.

Patrick Hoverstadt: “I believe that there is a future for tactical Enterprise Architecture”.

Patrick Hoverstadt: “Yes, you can design a system for a sound purpose.[...] if you have different identity from being inside the organization compared to you being outside the organization. It is true that there is a linear purpose from designing to executing, but there is a part of it that is also non-linear.”

Patrick Hoverstadt concluded that the models that we apply have to be lesser detailed (simpler) than those things the models are supposed to model. In our terminology when you are building model you are modeling a system that you have studied a particular behavior of human beings.

What Patrick Hoverstadt concluded was that systems have:

  • It is separated from its environment by a boundary.
  • Studying particular behavior implies a boundary.
  • Choosing a boundary implies studying particular behavior.

A model that is not valid is an illusion (based on the assumptions that Patrick Hoverstadt brought with his presentation).

When choosing (assuming that the person are aware of other models) a mental model the person isn’t able to alter his or her behavior except choosing another model and as such the focus would be (in many cases) changing their simplified way to view the world.

From this view a kind of debate between Patrick Hoverstadt and John Gotze erupted.

John Gotze: “It is not the model, it is the learning, the understanding and perhaps even the systems to get some points at the course”.

Patrick Hoverstadt: “From the modeling point of view it is great? Through the process of modeling you discovered where you are with EA? There is no feedback without learning and no learning with out feedback”. – Enterprise Architecture Summer School (Week 31 in Hilsinge 2011).

Assumptions are limiting your thinking and as such these assumptions would have to be dealt with in order to understand the world you are observing. Meta-models would have to deal with the assumptions you make and how to break them down. In other words you would have to challenge your assumptions.

Patrick Hoverstadt: “Xerox where about to go bankrupt, so they hired a management consultancy to come with some ideas on what to do, and they came up with producing photocopiers, since if it failed they (Xerox) would be out of business anyway”.

In management terms, information is the way to challenge management models. You would have to test your theory through challenging your views. You would have to design feedback loops in order to ensure data on how to improve your models.

Patrick Hoverstadt: “Measures usually becomes substitute for realities”.

While developing models you should try to filter out the noise in order to get a better model for the particular situation. Noise is an accuracy killer.

You have to start an entirely new procedure based on incidents, but you would have to ensure that you got the proper data to ensure you can add value to changing your models.

Make decisions based on information, don’t collect information based on decisions. What I mean is that you shouldn’t conclude what should be done except if you got the information to justify your decision to begin with.

Understanding diversity is driven by understanding the boundaries of the system. The creativity comes from diversity. There are evolutionary advantages to diversity according to Patrick Hoverstadt.

John Gotze: “The more successful companies have a diversity strategy, diversity on gender, ethnicity, education etc”.

Patrick Hoverstadt: “A hundred years ago this year, Taylor published Scientific Management, and we still live with that, so there is a whole lot of management theory, and budgets was introduced with McKinsey & Co in the 1920s. Linear determinism is rarely happening in a management cybernetics context, you rarely steer a ship in a linear (direct) approach. No one thinks that their behavior is being controlled by the system and yet it is. In the VSM the circles are production or activities and boxes are management”.

From this the idea was identified with the concept of Ashby’s Law was introduced.

Ashby’s Law

Deals with the law of requisite variety. Variety is used as a method fore measure complexity since it deals with the number of possible states of a system. Only variety can absorb variety.

The VSM Model and Designing Systems

The VSM is an exceptional design tool. But the tooling around the real stuff is rather “alternative”. I don’t have a real tool to model how the complexities. It is a tool problem but also a conceptualization problem.

Structural coupling is the core of evolution. Competition isn’t the driver, the process but the acting.

VSM is exactly a system that can be used in order to gain an understanding of that environment. According to Hoverstadt that the VSM is a model of a system capable of structural coupling.

This ended the keynote on Viable Systems Models and Kristian Hjort-Madsen took over with his presentation on the usage of frameworks and their usefulness for dealing with enterprises.

Frameworks Versus Institution by Kristian Hjort-Madsen

Due to the demand for development and evolution Accenture is heavily involved in Enterprise IT Architectures. Accenture engaging the various clients on Enterprise Architecture. Throughout his Ph.D. Dr. Kristian Hjort-Madsen, Ph.D. criticized the various frameworks available on the market. Through his career as a Ph.D. And in the public sector like the ministry of Finance he has had a rather linear approach to strategy development and strategy execution.

A lot of the work that Dr. Kristian Hjort-Madsen, Ph.D. is working with seems to deal with IT strategy tasks but in reality it is the work with Enterprise Architecture, at least that is what I assumed he really worked with while he explained what he does as senior consultant in Accenture.

Accenture operates with reference models that are compatible with many, if not most, of the industries that the consultancy operates in. In this particular light it seems like Accenture is rather content with applying generic frameworks (at first) and adapting them to the particular enterprise’s situation. Dr. Hjort-Madsen was of the opinion that this particular approach to deal with things were rather useful in order to “sell” the projects to the decision-makers in the enterprise.

While working with various different problems that enterprises out in the industry that Accenture sells their services to, they develops differebt industry reference frameworks. They will through these frameworks, they accelerate the development of solutions for the particular enterprises that they assists with solving particular tasks.

We went into the enterprise to the enterprise and worked out an ideal model for how Enterprise Architecture governance for the organization. From this particular view there where parts that was handled by

Dr. Kristian Hjort-Madsen, Ph.D.: “After I worked with this client, I ended up with questioning my conclusions in my Ph.D. where I used a lot of effort for concluding that frameworks don’t work. [….] but I think that a lot of people who applies a framework off-the-shelves will fail in the implementation phase.”

Dr. Kristian Hjort-Madsen, Ph.D.: “The understanding of systems-thinking is really important, and then I think, I don’t know how much you have been talking about power, but there is power all over the place and you really have to understanding. You don’t have to read all the works by Foucault.”

Dr. Kristian Hjort-Madsen, Ph.D.: “We focus on speed, ROI, decreased risks, proof of concept and acceleration of projects”.

I tend to agree with Dr. Hjort-Madsen, it makes no sense to develop frameworks for the sake of developing them, but they tend to be able to dictate which direction seems to be the most relevant in the beginning of the Enterprise Architecture Program’s lifetime.

Day Four

This day had a rather commercial approach to Enterprise Architecture. The PFA, DHL Express and Dong Energy did presentations on how to deal with their Enterprise Architectures.

PFA

Is about to mature through its foundation architecture. Due to the nature of the presentation I was rather involved in the generation of questions, and I therefore invested my attention in this particular aspect of the session. It is in its foundation phase due to it seems like the architecture program is still rather IT-centric. The IT-centric approach to Enterprise Architecture is rather useful in enterprises that are rather IT-dependent.

The PFA had an interesting approach to Enterprise Architecture. The person in charge of the department for Architecture and Method is named Soeren Staun Biangslev (SSB) who happens to be both the CTO and the chief architect. The PFA makes use of the MOOD modeling application in order to document the higher prioritized artifacts of their approach to Enterprise Architecture Framework.

The framework was (as I can recall) based on elements of TOGAF and as such the focus had been on proving to be valuable, and ensuring that projects have been implemented on time and in the best way possible. This was according to SSB some of the primary drivers of the Enterprise Architecture Program that the PFA had initiated. It was on the other hand rather important to point out how value could be created for the various stakeholders of the enterprise.

It seemed like the PFA had its grabs on Enterprise Architecture, but the enterprise would have to deal with many different perspectives on how to evolve the program to go beyond the enterprise’s social systems.

Keywords from the presentation

  • Value.
  • Speed.
  • Overview.
  • Adaption.
  • Information Technology.

My Observations Based on the Enterprise Architecture

In my humble opinion the PFA could benefit from using their Enterprise Architecture Program as a way to challenge the mental models of the various decision-makers and the ordinary employee who would have to deal with the problems at hand in the operations of the enterprise. This could enable unseen synergies.

After this particular presentation the representative from DHL Express began with his approach to Enterprise Architecture.

DHL Express

Adrian Apthorp did a presentation on how DHL Express handles its Enterprise Architecture. Express is the original organization back in the 1950s.

The enterprise has about 100.000 employees and as such 250 dedicated aircrafts. The enterprise has three international hubs for cargo. Leipzig is the biggest of the three, secondly is the Hong Kong and Cincinnati.

The enterprise has two IT centers one in Malaysia and one in the Czech Republic.

What the DHL Express is focusing on is to deal with the focus of capabilities that can be build upon the Enterprise Architecture Program. Somehow I got the feeling that the DHL Express has an architecture that is

Adrian Apthorp has been focusing on adopting Enterprise Architecture as a management discipline e.g. what is the role of the Enterprise Architect. Likewise did he commit some attention to what essential “building blocks” of EA is to the enterprise.

AA: “Ivory towers gives architecture a bad name.”

AA: “The role of policeman doesn’t go well. […] You will not become a popular man.”

The DHL has been able to apply its Enterprise Architecture Program in e.g. moving its European headquarters from Belgium to Germany (Bonn).

AA compared enterprise architecture to city-planning. John Gotze introduced the Pat Helland and the blog post / paper “Metropolis”. In his opinion the blog could be used for generating interesting ideas.

After this particular presentation the focus changed to a crash-course-kind-of-presentation by Jan Staack who is the chief architect for Enterprise Architecture from Dong Energy.

Dong Energy’s Approach to Enterprise Architecture by Jan Staack

Enterprise Architecture is shaping capability through architecture planning program, strategy and planning, enterprise architecture and programme management. Besides that Mr. Staack introduced a reference model from TOGAF on what skills Enterprise Architects and other architects profile can be classified as.

The presentation concluded the ending of the summer school at the hotel located at the Northern part of the larger Copenhagen district. The last day (day five) took place at the IT University of Copenhagen.

Day Five

This day was build upon a workshop the IT University of Copenhagen. It was designed as a workshop where the representative from the DHL Express was the facilitator.

Discussion

The workshop was rather discussion based and as such the focus of what was to be included in the Enterprise Architecture Program. What is “in the EA program” is about what could clearly be included in the program.

In the EA Program

  1. The enterprise architecture program should include standards, processes and facilitating knowledge sharing in the organization in order to ensure the integration of the verified data.
  2. Legal council e.g. enforcing (convincing) other parts of the enterprise architecture program to adapt to the commonly agreed standards.
  3. Planning input – department. Which is according to AA where the dynamic role of the enterprise comes in. The architect would hopefully say or think about adding value through knowing how the various processes, technologies etc. that should be put into play.
  4. Owning the reference architecture.

Out of the EA Program

  1. Project Manager role shouldn’t be a part of the Enterprise Architecture Program.
  2. Not the implementor.
  3. IT support.
  4. Taking in too much, too many tasks, and too many tasks that have been IT-related.
  5. IT-operations.

The Building Blocks of the Enterprise Architecture

The focus of the Enterprise Architecture Program was some of the building blocks dealing with the concept of enterprise’s architecture. Likewise are there two different perspectives on EA.

In the EA Program

  1. Patterns.
  2. “Networks” that means value through networks.
  3. You would have to understand the business operating model.
  4. Supporting, helping and finding strategic dynamics. At times this would lead to some degree of policing.
  5. The information used in the business is naturally a part of the Enterprise Architecture Program.

Out of the EA Program

  1. Defining business objectives.
  2. Not-detailed designing.

  3. Not all change management.

The Role in Enterprise Management

There are several different forms of management disciplines and tools that should be connected and dealt with in the Enterprise Architecture Program.

Steer

  1. Balanced Scorecard, there has to be a connection, e.g. through resources.
  2. Governance structure.
  3. Standards, plans and principles are a part of the steering approach to Enterprise Architecture.

Operate

  1. Chart of accountants.
  2. ABC (Activity Based Costing) models are located located.
  3. Indoctrination and training to the organization’s structure.

The meta-model is combination of steering and operations, and the meta-model is according to AA an enabler of change. AA named this change models.

Change Through Enterprise Architecture

AA had a small presentation on how to deal with change management and Enterprise Architecture.

  1. Identify the business objectives and ensure the dependencies and break them down into projects e.g. through a GANTT-chart.
  2. Map business capabilities and organize them within the GANTT-chart.
  3. This is the dependencies, capabilities and the business objectives have been assigned and allocated to specific projects and through that layout the strategy.

Conclusion

Through this particular summer school it became rather clear that the situation for dealing with the enterprise has to be build upon an idea that the architects would have to be pragmatic. On the other hand it seems that there is no reason for not going beyond the classical assumptions of what is realistic, and it seems like a lot of the potential of Enterprise Architecture is really about challenging the mental models (or models in general) that the enterprise’s decision-makers believe in.

The question of fait is really a necessity to deal with in the long run since it seems like a lot of different people (regardless of their profiles and personas) seems like they talk of applying systems, but they tend not to act upon the systems.

Systems are on the other hand dictating behavior of the various profiles in the enterprise, if the systems are implemented correctly. Furthermore does it seem like Enterprise Architecture deals with cultivating complex systems in order to re-enforce the enterprises ability to operationalize their capabilities. One of the major trends among the commercial actors at the summer school was that they had worked a lot on capability maps. My hypothesis on the matter is that the various Enterprise Architects makes use of the capability maps to inform the decision-makers on what they “realistically” can do with the enterprise.

The last day at the summer school convinced me that one of the punch lines I learned at the Copenhagen Business School appears to represent the truth. The punchline goes: “without accountability it is doomed to fail”. If the enterprise architects don’t have control over the design of incentives and organizational change, and they aren’t held accountable for the changes it would seem like organizational design is not part of the Enterprise Architecture Program.

Enterprise Architecture is about exploring, probing, and challenging the models the various decision-makers and other personas have and it is about developing realistic plans and change approaches. Enterprise Architecture as a concept has a great potential for change the enterprise for the better, but it has to go beyond the classical boundaries of what is considered the norm of an Enterprise Architecture Program.

Download the paper here.

Week 22 Enterprise Architecture Summer Camp (Day 2)

This blog post deals with the second and final day of the summer school dealing with Enterprise Architecture. The tagline for the summer school is “Scandinavian Design and Oblique Angles”.

The day was characterized as a setup that was dominated by companies and industry professionals who presented topics of a wide variety of topics.

A Next-Generation EA Approach to Modeling the Firm using Capability Sets

John Gotze has in cooperation with Pat Turner written a paper on how to use capability sets in order to make Enterprise Architecture to work, how to sell Enterprise Architecture and what the value of Enterprise Architecture is all about.

The primary problem that the paper is about to answer is what capabilities the enterprise can get and how it can enhance it through shared capabilities.

John Gotze emphasized that one of the problems with the model that Ross and Weill (2006) proposed for Enterprise Architecture is based on that they don’t give a clue on what is their platform for execution and what is a part of the foundation platform.

John Gotze defines a capability as “an Ability or Expertise upon which that the Enterprise relies to fulfill its core functions”. Likewise does Gotze and Turner define an enterprise capability as “A capability that pervades across the whole of the enterprise”.

According to John Gotze, one organization that applies enterprise capabilities, is the U.S. Army. An example could be the tagline “one army”. With this in mind John Gotze made a reference to David A. Clark’s book on world poverty that deals with how to ensure capabilities among other things.

John Gotze later said that a capability set is directly coupled to the execution of the various processes. The second case that John Gotze presented was the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. The agency should have one of the biggest Enterprise Architecture programs that John Gotze has ever seen and as such they have articulated a five year plan and roadmaps on how to achieve a better architecture.

In order to achieve enterprise capabilities for the enterprise John Gotze and Pat Turner has developed a rather comprehensive framework in order to achieve a better enterprise.

  • A big part of the value of enterprise architecture program can be traced to the capabilities that the program can aid the enterprise with.
  • The paper investigates case studies on how Enterprise Architecture could generate “enterprise capabilities”.
  • An academic investigation of Enterprise Architecture is all about and how “competitive advantages” can be achieved through the implementation of a Enterprise Architecture program.

Vestas Wind Systems – Windy Architectures

The keynote speaker is Troels Fleckenstein who is Vice President at Vestas Wind Systems.

According to the keynote speaker all windmills from Vestas are equipped with technology that enable the windmills to communicate through the Internet with Vestas. Each of the Windmills communicate with Vestas 512 times yearly. This has created a large quantity of data that the corporation has to deal with in order to ensure maintenance of the windmills. Vestas hasn’t an Enterprise Architecture program, or at least that is what the speaker from Vestas said.

The keynote included a video on what Vestas is all about and Ditlev Engel appeared. Apparently Vestas has a slogan that they apply internally that is known as “people before megawatt” that as such means that Vestas doesn’t have HR-department but a department for people and culture (which I presume is pretty much the same). Vestas’ strategy is based upon that they believe they should be number one in wind energy. As such Vestas claims that 1/3 of all windmills sold on a global scale is produced by Vestas.

For Vestas the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India represents the key markets due to the development of the various enterprises. Most likely are other countries in the BRIC group also of interest to Vestas Wind Systems.

Vestas has 15 locations around the world that develops on new products. Vestas produce nacelles in 15 locations, blades in 7 locations and towers in 2 locations and as such Vestas is able to deliver “Wind Power Plants” in eight regions of the world, or at least that is what the keynote speaker proclaimed.

Vestas’ current strategy is named the triple 15. The current corporate strategy goes to 2015 and they want to achieve a yearly revenue on 15% (currently it is 8.5%) and an EBIT (Earnings before interest and taxes) on 15%.

The keynote speaker presented the Vestas business model as titled it the strategy for empower the corporate strategy. With this approach in mind I am sure that Vestas applies an idea that is compatible with “Cybernetics paradigm”. Furthermore Vestas applies an approach they have titled “The Vestas’ High Five” that entails that energy should be competitive, predictable, independent, fast and clean. According to the keynote speaker the most important partners for Vestas are their customers. In other words Vestas would like to own the means of production of “wind energy” and thereby be able to set the price(s) for producing Windmills.

Vestas’ enterprise architecture team is located within the department for strategy and innovation and this is located in Vestas’ group IT. Apparently Vestas apply a model that includes four perspectives: 1) Innovation, 2) Roadmap, 3) Projects and last but not least 4) System Portfolio.

The Vestas’ Enterprise Architecture program is about “business and value adding activities”, or that is the opinion of the keynote speaker.

When working with enterprise architecture the keynote speaker presented the Vestas’ value management square, that most of all looks like a strategy map or balanced scorecard as Kaplan and Norton would define it.

“The way I see, we add value to the business is to have insight into what systems that the business would need” – Troels Fleckenstein (Week 22, 2011).

Vestas applies a framework that is known as the BSG-model in architecture. BSG stands for Business Service Group that is a sheet of paper detailing how the enterprise works. The documents details how the processes works in the enterprise. The BSGs are linked to the various enterprises processes in Vestas and as such the enterprise architects are working with modeling the architecture a long side the BSGs.

Besides the enterprise architects Vestas applies the title “domain architects” for individuals who have a specific knowledge on how the enterprise applies.

Vestas have made use of IBM, Accenture and other consultancies in order to develop their framework. In other words Vestas Wind Systems have developed a synthesis that hey apply in order to enable the systems.

According to the keynote speaker there aren’t any off-the-shelves process frameworks that Vestas was able to make use of.

“We are not such a box” – Troels Fleckenstein (Week 22, 2011).

Vestas applies Aris as a tool for modeling, but the keynote speaker has a rather controversial view on how the tool works which is represented in the quotation below:

“When speaking of Aris it is quite clear it has been developed by German engineers. It is not made for white people” – Troels Fleckenstein (Week 22, 2011).

Vestas’ IT fundamentals deals with providing fast prototyping, innovation lab, enabling agility, “show me – do it”, safeguard end-to-end transparency of business processes, partnering with the business and providing enterprise architecture to guarantee reliability.

It seems like the approach to Enterprise Architecture that Vestas makes use of, is dealing with communication on how the enterprise can deal with the problems and how the enterprise is able to deal with the problem.

When it comes to the focus on governance and advice Vestas have applied boards for processes, BPS community, Vestas Government and SteerCo where a representative from Group IT (and thereby a representative for the Enterprise Architecture group) is represented. The boards usually handles investments, strategy and innovation, program and projects. One of the many interesting things that Vestas works with in their Enterprise Architecture program is “the line of sight”.

“I’m not a particular big fan of frameworks since they tend to distract us from the communication side of EA and the value adding part of EA” – Troels Fleckenstein (Week 22, 2011).

While educating the enterprise architects Vestas applies an approach where they send their architects to Gartner summits and certification modules. However they haven’t made use of TOGAF or other approaches to Enterprise Architecture.

When Vestas works with IT forecasts they usually take in consultants from Gartner and other consultancies to give the various stakeholders in Group IT ideas on what kind of IT the enterprise should invest in.

Obviously Vestas experiences situations of when and where to break away from their own Enterprise Architecture standards. The way the keynote speaker presented the issue it seemed like that it is based on “intuition” and what the “business” defines as a necessity to cope with. The keynote speaker used an example from the implementation of the windmills and how the various committees dealt with the particular problem.

  • Vestas’ is a rather complex enterprise that have developed its own framework to deal with its architecture.
  • The Enterprise Architecture program is owned by the IT department, or at least it appeared that way while the VP presented the situation.
  • The IT and EA agents are represented in various investment and governance boards in Vestas Wind Systems.

Qualiware Enabling Positive Change

The CEO of Qualiware, Kuno Brodersen, acted as keynote speaker on knowledge management and modeling.

The keynote speaker was of the opinion that the modeling of the change processes is a vital key to success, since the model can help the decision makers and individuals in the enterprise to focus on particular areas of attention.

The keynote speaker was of the opinion that many modern enterprises shares the same view on how the management model. In Denmark most enterprises agrees upon that the Scandinavian management model is the best way to achieve.

A fundamental part of the Scandinavian management model. According to Kuno Brodersen, social capital is what enterprises gains when the social systems solves problems.

There are several factors that impacts the concept of social capital e.g. the individual factors, job factors, group factors, company factors.

In reality these factors have to be included when you measure enterprises and their ability to deal go beyond the expected approach to achieve their individual goals.

“The point of modeling tools is that knowledge from the individual actors in the enterprise are modeling and archived in the model” – Kuno Brodersen (Week 22, 2011).

While implementing the modeling tools it becomes a necessity to involve all of the employees, understand knowledge sharing, we have to focus to create transparent management systems and the system has to facilitate distribution of decision making.

It seemed like that CEO Kuno Brodersen was a bit skeptical about the Gartner Group and their approach to information technology and Enterprise Architecture, though he chose to apply one of their models in order to define the “new way of thinking” in Enterprise IT and Enterprise Architecture.

In the future it becomes a necessity to know how the social networks and the way people interact in social networks in order to facilitate knowledge sharing.

Technology trends will have an even greater impact on how knowledge sharing can be facilitated. In the future modeling software trends like the “Like” feature or comments on the various artifacts. Likewise will the concept of rating most likely be implemented in modern modeling tools.

Features from the social networks will in time be incorporated in to the modeling tools, or this is perspective that Kuno Brodersen presented. The reason for this is that it can be used as a form for “information filtering” and “quality insurance”.

“One of the best qualities of an Enterprise Architecture program is that the various models can be viewed by various stakeholders in the enterprise, and as such this can be used to define the enterprise ontology” – Kuno Brodersen (Week 22, 2011).

The QualiWare EA Framework is an organization of artifacts, but according to Kuno Brodersen, graduate students who are about to start writing on their master thesis could or should think on how the Enterprise Architecture framework represents the “social capital”, social networks, and social knowledge.

Kuno Brodersen presented the QualiWare analytics approach to artifacts and modeling that was build like a balanced scorecard that could be used in order to define how KPIs are aligned with the various processes. As such the data that should be represented in the QualiWare models should be collected from the data warehouses and business intelligence systems, this should add value to the platform for enterprise ontology. His approach to business intelligence and knowledge sharing, Kuno Brodersen, applied a rather positivistic approach and as such this seemed slightly in contrast to his initial approach on the Scandinavian management school; however he did emphasize that the business intelligence approach should be used with caution.

Gamification is “the new black” and it will become part of the modeling tools, or at least this is the views that Kuno Brodersen presented. E.g. Qualiware as a modeling tool has a “treasure hunt” game embedded in the modeling tool in order to train or motivate people in order to make people learn about the new models, processes and activities.

  • New tools are needed to document and deal with knowledge.
  • Enterprise ontology is a part of knowledge management.
  • In engaging the various stakeholders in learning more about the enterprise’s architecture the concept of gamification should be introduced into new products.

The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating

Olov Östberg was the keynote speaker. As such his presentation dealt with e-government and changing social and technological systems in Sweden.

In his presentation Olov Östberg showed dias that stated that only 18% of IT projects are delivered on time and that are succesfull and he put this in light of the Swedish approach to e-government.. Through time (about 300 years) the Swedish approach to government has resulted into very independent public agencies.

There have been different approaches in order to deal with the data that the Swedish government has collected over time. In the 90s and the early 2000s the focus was onto developing portals.

From his experience there are three levels of e-government that should be dealt with in the future. Government 1.0 is the classical approach, the second level is dealing with more communication and at some point slightly more openness and the third and last level deals with engaging the citizen as a co-creator.

The Swedish approach to e-government includes a rather liberal approach to how the local agencies handles its processes. As such it can become increasingly difficult to implement one approach to Enterprise Architecture. Likewise did the national authorities (the Swedish government) refused to install a national CIO, national roadmap or for that matter a national portal for data and information sharing.

Olov Östberg presented various initiatives on how the Swedish approach to e-government dealt with common problems like insufficient road maintenance, electricity etc.

“We have to realize that the foundation of Swedish society is changing.” – Olov Östberg.

Holistic Management in a Context of Enterprise IT Management and Organizational Leadership

An Approach to Sense Making and Intelligent Business

There are probably many different ways to gain sense in each of the many different enterprises and organizations across the planet. This particular paper investigates one particular approach question the validity of the data and the selected approaches to articulate strategies and plans. This should give you (the reader) an idea on how to develop better plans that in turn would give the enterprise a better system.

In order to make proper decisions on how to develop the enterprise it becomes a necessity for the enterprise to deal with the question of sense making. How does the specialists and systems that have been applied in order to analyze data from the enterprise’s environment? How does the systems adapt to the trends the data indicates might be developing? How do the specialists question and tests the data they have collected and analyzed?

The three step approach to organizational learning and data collection is in its origin based on Weick’s approach, though I’ve taken some liberty in order to create a synthesis in order to specify the ideas that Weick presented in his book (Making Sense of the Organization, 2000) to an Enterprise Architecture approach in order to enable enterprises with crystallizing competitive advantages. By crystallizing competitive advantages the enterprises could avoid situations that in other cases would have forced out of business. This leads to the first part of the process that Karl Weick introduced in his book.

Scanning for Data

It is of importance of all enterprises to scan its environment in order to gain an understanding of how the stakeholders (competitors, suppliers, government etc.) will be acting in potential future scenario. This is usually a rather good component in articulating a corporate strategy and all of the subsequent strategies like the IT strategy, financial strategy, organization planning etc.

The scanning process includes the situation for the internal environment and for the external environment. The internal environment consists of an other set of stakeholders than with the external environment, but these are just as important. Likewise is the internal environment connected to the the external environment.

The data is usually based on several different sources and as such the data that the specialists and systems collects are of different qualities and as such the data and their sources have to be questioned. The questioning is in a way a process to ensure that the specialists who collects the data should question the ways they identify the data and how to be able to deal with the way the data is analyzed. This is discussed in detail in the interpretation.

Interpretation

While analyzing the data the specialists works with a validation technique that in turn tries to investigate how or if the enterprise can make use of the data. The interpretation is likewise a fundamental element in the way the data is applied in the strategy development process.

The interpretation can be used to ensure that the strategies could be easier to implement, and as such the strategies could lead to the desired state of the enterprise. As such the focus of the planning would have to avoid what Mintzberg (Mintzbegr 2009) defines as the planning school, that is characterized by applying a lot of resources to the articulation of planning but as such it usually emphasize planning too much and implementation too little.

Learning

The specialists and the systems would have to learn from the articulated strategies, otherwise will they fail in adapting to the new situations of the environment that they analyze.

The learning process is likely the most important step of the entire process since the enterprise’s specialists would have to adapt their analytical models to understand how the environment.

The result of the learning phase is in itself a form of knowledge sharing and it impacts the framework of how the enterprise operates.

Learning and knowledge sharing are two sides of the same issue and as such the specialists and decision makers have to think in how to transfer the knowledge to one another. For this a specialized repository can be applied. In order to share knowledge across the enterprise the individuals would have to a common understanding of what knowledge is about and who to interact within in order to gain access to the information and knowledge that they assume they would need in order to make better decisions and better plans for how the enterprise can gain competitive advantages.

In order to gan a further understanding of how the enterprise can create value through planning it becomes a necessity that the cycle is documented and the cycle is transparent for all of the stakeholders that interacts with top level planning.

The Cycle

The process is cyclic and that is essential that it is build upon a cyclic structure in order to the specialists to make their predictions more reliable. More reliable plans can be used by the decision makers to enable the enterprise to achieve its goals.

Furthermore can cycle be enhanced with the enterprise, if an Enterprise Architecture Program is established and that the decision makers makes use of the data that the Enterprise Architecture program has been able to produce.

The illustration below shows how the enterprises can make use of the sense making process to achieve a more coherent, better aligned and more agile enterprise. As it is illustrated the Enterprise Architecture Program is used to enable the decision makers to align the various conceptual sections of the enterprise. In the diagram below there are three conceptual sections of the enterprise. The decision makers articulate a strategy.

The experienced reader would note that the definition of what Enterprise Architecture impacts is derived form the EA3 Cube framework that Bernard (2005) proposed. The approach is based on the concept of Enterprise Engineering (Sjoelin 2011a) and as such it is the opinion of the author that the focus of the .

Assessing the Business Processes

The chief architect should evaluate the business processes, and it is a necessity to evaluate the primary business processes, business model/operating model (Ross & Weil 2009, Ross et al. 2006, Ross & Weill 2004, Finkelstein 2006) and support processes (Porter 1985).

In this particular paper the concept of primary processes is defined on what processes that are essential in order for the enterprise to deliver value to its customers. The chief architect should naturally apply a multi perspective analysis method to understand the underlying principles of the enterprise and its social systems. For this the chief architect and his associates (the enterprise architects, solution architects, business architects) should investigate the operating model and business model of the enterprise in order to gain an understanding of how the enterprise’s internal environment will change in the near future. The scanning of the internal environment should uncover the processes that aren’t fully supported by IT and the processes of which the enterprise would be able to identify a series of projects that could change the enterprise to a desired and more competitive enterprise.

The chief architect or one of his or her associates have identified which of the business processes that do support the business in achieving its goals. He or she would have to go into a process of identifying those processes that would have to be obliterated (Hammer 2000) (re-designed completely). In the process the chief architect and associates would have to re-thing the support processes in order to avoid the pitfalls of an unstructured and incoherent enterprise architecture.

The chief architect and his associates would have investigate how the various processes could be grouped and how the various projects can be implemented in order for the enterprise to harvest synergy. The primary business processes should be organized into “clusters” along side the support processes that clearly can be associated with each of the primary processes and as it has been mentioned earlier in this paper it is a necessity to organize the various business relates activities and processes in order to maximize the potential synergies. However there are some pitfalls that the chief architect and his associates might fall into for example is complexity a factor that can’t be ignored. The more complex a particular segment or domain of the enterprise is the more likely it is that the particular system in the enterprise can’t be generalized into an “Enterprise-Wide” platform, or rather the meaning of doing so is lesser relevant in the sense of information systems design.

Connect the Business Processes and the Information Systems

The chief architect and his associated would have to apply a structured methodology in order to ensure that the enterprise is able to establish and understand how the enterprise and its underlying architecture works. In this paper the author assume that this can be done through the establishment of a formal group that is in charge of investigating and defining the enterprise’s architecture. The method can be based on formal Enterprise Architecture framework and as such be a part of the structured methodology that the decision takers decides to apply.

The author’s definition of Enterprise Architecture is:

Enterprise Architecture is a set of principles, standards and methods for achieving informed governance. The models derived from the standards and methods have an impact on how the enterprise is able to align each of the elements of the enterprise with one another. The alignment will enable enterprise governance and agility for adaption and assurance.” – Peter F. T. Sjoelin (2011a)

It is the author’s opinion that the framework is the set of standards that dictates how the various artifacts that would be documented and stored in the repository are to be defined. In other words the framework is alpha – omega in order lay the foundation for an enterprise ontology (Dietz 2006, Bernard 2005, Hoogervorst 2009).

The framework could eventually give the chief architect the advantage of winning over stakeholders that are skeptical towards the concept of Enterprise Architecture, and likewise does the author assume that the framework would have a significant impact on the value of the repository that contains the descriptions of the artifacts. The value is derived from how well the various stakeholders in the enterprise are able to connect to the repository and understand the value of these.

As earlier mentioned the author expressed his views on that business processes and IT rarely generates synergies due to the lack of obliteration of processes that were designed for the pre-computer and Internet age. It is necessity for the chief architect and his associates to investigate the enterprise’s current usage of information technology and information systems. The chief architect and his associates should be working with a methodology that documents the various information systems, platforms, applications, devices that the enterprise applies in order to provide the various stakeholders (executives, middle managers and employees) the proper information in order to make them understand how the social system works. The chief architect would have to make sure that the business processes and the information systems are evaluated before and after the change process has been initiated in order to give the decision makers the best possible overview of how the enterprise has changed after the implementation of the new approach to business processes and information systems.

It is the opinion of the author that in order to ensure that the enterprise would be able to gain an advantage in governance by focusing on the enterprise’s approach to investing in its technology, assets, people and systems (Potts 2008). The investment process is essentially the embodiment of both the corporate strategy, the IT strategy, the financial strategy etc. After the chief architect and his associates have worked with their analysis of the enterprise’s corporate strategy it is almost certain that a road map should be articulated so the focus could be shared among the members of the Enterprise Architecture group and later on among the various decision makers in the particular enterprise.

It is the author’s opinion that the investment approach would have to be connected with the the enterprise’s program management. It will become a necessity for the enterprise to deal with its approach to enterprise investments and program management since it is the decision makers who are responsible for the allocation of resources to the projects and systems that the enterprise are able to invest in the projects that will change the enterprise. According to Bernard the the enterprise would have to change by the many different projects alter and mature the architecture of the enterprise.

The author is of the opinion that the desired architecture (TO – BE) should be described in a transition plan that should be used as a document to communicate with the stakeholders and the decision makers in order to communicate and evaluate the each of the projects that would have to be allocated resources to and implementation of projects. Likewise is it the author’s opinion that the transition itself has to be guided by the principles that the chief architect and the decision makers have articulated.

As the author has mentioned earlier in this paper the complexity is a barrier that can’t be ignored if the synergies of enterprise architecture and enterprise governance should be harvested.

Group the Business Processes and the Information Systems

The social systems have to be identified and as such it becomes a necessity to group the systems into various domains of specialisms. Each of these domains would have to generate synergy among the social systems and the information systems in order to justify their existence. The domains are a necessity in order to cope with the question of complexity.

Complex organizations can very well own processes and departments that are specialized to the degree that it constitutes a silo. In those cases, the silos can’t be viewed as negative issue, as long as the employees, middle managers and executives in charge of the various processes communicate and interact with one another on regular basis.

In order to ensure that the changes by grouping the various information systems and social systems, the managers would have to allocated resources in order to facilitate communities of practices that would enable the stakeholders in the enterprise with understanding and adapting to the new situation in the enterprise. It is pivotal that the decision makers allows the various members of the enterprise to make use of their time at work and in the change process to form such social networks.

A community of practice is defined by Wenger (1999, p. 47) as Such a concept of practice includes both the explicit and the tacit. It includes what is said and what is left unsaid; what is represented and what is assumed. It includes the language, tools, documents, images, symbols well-defined roles, specified criteria, codified procedures, regulations, and contracts that various practices make explicit for a variety of purposes.

It is likewise a necessity to make use of the social networks to create an understanding of how the enterprise works since that would add value to the ontology of the enterprise.

The social networks are likewise pivotal in order to enable the change process that occurs within the enterprise, and as such the chief architect and the decision takers who are in charge of the enterprise have to identify change agents and motivate the various social networks to adapt to the changes and work alongside the goals that the decision takers have articulated for the enterprise. In this light the decision takers would have to trust that the members of the enterprise works for the best of the enterprise and to some extend allow the employees to self-organize and prioritize the various tasks at hand.

I would recommend a form of hybrid of a top down (Kotter 1995) and bottom up approach (Hamel 2007) to solve the problems with anchoring the changes in the enterprise. The approach is dealt with in detail in table 1: The suggested approach to change management.

Step

Description

Impact

1

Establishment of the an active network within the executive group.

The executive group and middle managers (who aspire to become executives).

2

Identification of change agents in the enterprise that would stay among middle managers and employees.

The entire enterprise and on all levels of the enterprise. There should be found agents as many places as possible.

3

Establishment of an office or department for internal communication in the enterprise. This office has to be located close to the change leader and his position so it is clear that what is sent to the employees in the organization is the words and intentions of the leading coalition.

The upper end of the middle management. Eventually it will impact the rest of the enterprise since the communication from this office should be directed to all parts of the enterprise.

4

Establishment of scope, goals and mission clearance. Stakeholder alignment is a necessity to create the proper dynamics.

The change coalition (all agents on all levels of the enterprise should be involved in this).

5

The change leader should make sure to attend meetings and conferences with the other managers on how the change effort is planned to impact the enterprise.

Executive group and middle management.

6

Plan workshops with employees that focus on identifying issues that needs to be dealt with in the particular devisions, departments, processes and projects.

All members of the enterprise.

7

Enable feedback channels where the executives, managers, and employees can report if departments or processes don’t work as intended. In this case IT / IS is a part of the concept of processes.

It will impact all levels of the enterprise in order to achieve that all members of the enterprise are able to add information to what needs to be re-configured.

9

Initiate the implementation process.

All members of the enterprise will be impacted as a result of the change program.

10

Keep on changing the architecture in order to achieve agility and adaption the changing environment of the enterprise.

In the long run it will impact all members of the enterprise on all levels. In the short run small sections of the enterprise will be changed.

Table 1: The suggested approach to change management.

The managers needs the information that they can gain access to in the social networks through their insight to the networks. When it comes to the diffusion of knowledge it is very likely that the segments of the enterprise that are too complex. If the knowledge is too complex it is evident to investigate if the particular domain can be handled by enterprise-wide systems or for that matter enterprise-wide business approaches. Nonetheless the most important thing is that the any new employees, managers or executives can be introduced to the persons who have some idea on how to deal with the problems, tasks, activities and processes in each of the domains that are likely to be too complex. What is important for the enterprise is that the executives, middle managers and not to forget the employees support a culture of knowledge and information sharing. The IT systems should be developed to support their particular processes. These information systems could eventually be connected, but there is as such no need for enterprise-wide information systems that standardize the workflows. Knowledge can be hard to standardize and as such the various stakeholders of the enterprise can’t be expected to know everything about the same topic. In other words it is very likely that the chief architect and the decision takers would have to challenge their assumption on process standardization.

Create Value Through Grouping of IS and Business Processes

The chief architect and his associates would have to investigate how the enterprise can generate value through grouping the social systems and information systems.

The approach that the chief architect and his associates should work with a projects that will enable change for the various projects that would change the enterprise.

The progress for each of the projects will be impacting the enterprise’s architecture and thereby transform the architecture from the AS – IS situation (Bernard 2005)which is the current state for the enterprise’s architecture to the desired state which Bernard names the “TO-BE” state. The transition plan is the document that communicates what kind of projects that would have to be initiated and implemented in order to mature the enterprise’s architecture and through that enable the enterprise to reach its goals. The transition plan also works as a kind of plan that can be communicated to the various stakeholders who would have to back the enterprise in the maturation of the particular situation. The maturation process has to be evaluated before the chief architect and his followers initiates the change program. It is very likely that the stakeholders will be easier won over if they can see a logical plans that includes economical estimation of how the plan impact the enterprise’s economical situation. It is needless to say that the enterprise’s decision makers would have to have an insight on how well the enterprise can process the various resources it has at hand and thereby produce the products and services that its customers want to purchase.

The evaluation process is likewise a part of how the enterprise scans its internal and external environment and as such the Enterprise Architecture program should work as the platform for the construction of a shared ontology across the enterprise. The chief architect should keep in mind that in departments or segments that can be characterized as being characterized as complex it is rather likely that their particular views can’t be generalized into an enterprise ontology if such can be formulated.

In order to get the information that the chief architect and the decision makers need in order to plan and allocate resources to the transformation the enterprise would have to go through. They would have to go into detail with how the various social networks and communities of practices and search for the information and knowledge in order to gain a firm understanding of how the enterprise works and thereby how it can be changed. In this light the chief architect and his associates would have to decide if they should apply a top-down or a bottom-up approach. The approach chosen would eventually become a part of the debate that the members of the enterprise on what has to be done. Will the decision makers tolerate increased autonomy or if they would prefer increased centralization. As earlier mentioned it seems like that the tendencies for the development organizations.

Change the Enterprise

The chief architect and the decision makers would have to go further with the change of the enterprise. The change process would have to be a part of the overall Enterprise Architecture program and it will certainly impact the enterprise and how it works. In order to do so the chief architect would have to influence the stakeholders (decision makers, the middle managers and for that matter the employees). The changes are caused by the the questioning of the how the enterprise is able to collect the data needed in order to take the decisions needed to achieve the goals that was set for the enterprise. The author is of the opinion that the grouping of information systems and social systems in order to harvest the synergies with each one of them and among each of the clusters The clusters can most likely produce synergies for each of the areas that shows the amount of gravity that produce a barrier of complexity.

Before the chief architect and the executives commit themselves to changing the enterprise they would have to understand how the enterprise and its architecture works. In order to achieve this the chief architect would have to choose an Enterprise Architecture framework, adapting the framework to the particular enterprise and implement the framework. Thereafter should the chief architect and the enterprise architects work with identifying the various artifacts, and organizing them in an Enterprise Architecture repository. While working with the identification of artifacts and organization of artifacts in the EA repository it is important that the chief architects understands that there might be barriers to create define an unified ontology and as a result of that there might be a necessity to create several different sub-units of the EA repository. The chief architect work with an assumption that each of the specialized operations of the enterprise should be mapped as a separated entity and as a separate mini architecture of the enterprise.

The author is of the opinion that it is possible to convert extremely specialized knowledge for each of the specialized processes to other parts of the enterprise without a lot of the meaning of each of the artifacts is lost. It is better that there is a platform for informed governance for each of the segments than a system that doesn’t adapt to the entire enterprise. The managers of each of these segments should in the long run participate in the community of practice that shares knowledge and know how with one another. The chief architect can at some extent work as the change manager would would have to convince the various stakeholders in the enterprise to support the changes and in the same time enable them to take the changes even further.

The change manager would have to ensure that the office of internal communication is located and positioned as a part of management and it symbolizes the foundation of management for all other segments of the enterprise. It is pivotal that the change efforts are supported by the middle managers since they act as the approvers of each of the employees time and effort to commit to the particular change system. If the middle managers ignore the call for change and disapprove of the changes that the employees suggests then it is very likely that the changes will come to a still and eventually fail. Likewise would the commitment of the employee be of great importance since it is likely that each of the employees have specialized knowledge of how the work processes interacts.

Conclusions

The author is of the opinion that the organization have to work with several different approaches to challenge their particular views on how the enterprise collects the data that are used by the decision makers. Likewise is it likely that the various decision makers of the enterprise would have to deal with identifying segments of the enterprise that are too complex to be adapted to generalized business processes. The author is of the opinion that the chief architect and his associates would have to deal with the challenges of adding value to the enterprise by applying the standardized business activities and business processes, but in the same time be able to identify where it wouldn’t make sense to apply standardized systems since that wouldn’t provide the enterprise with any kind of advantages.

The focus of the members of the Enterprise Architecture team would have to include the concept of complexity to the concept of enterprise ontology and as such should the repositories that would be able to connect the various sections of the enterprise and communicate the meaning meaning of how the enterprise works to the decision makers and other stakeholders who would have to make use of the knowledge that is represented in the repositories.

Likewise is it a necessity for the decision makers and the chief architect would have to investigate the various elements of the enterprise in order to achieve better insight into how the enterprise works and from that enable better decision making in order to achieve the objectives for the enterprise.

Bibliography

Bernard, S., A., 2005. An Introduction To Enterprise Architecture: Second Edition 2nd ed., AuthorHouse.

Dietz, J.L.G., 2006. Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology, Springer.

Hamel, G., 2007. The Future of Management, Harvard Business School Press.

Hammer, M., 1990. Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate. , Harvard Business Review no. 68.

Hoogervorst, J.A.P., 2009. Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering, Springer.

Kotter, J.P., 1995. Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, (March – April 1995), p.9.

Wenger, E., 1999. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity New Ed., Cambridge University Press.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, P.B. & Lampel, J.B., 2008. Strategy Safari: The Complete Guide Through the Wilds of Strategic Management 2nd ed., Financial Times/ Prentice Hall.

Porter, M.E., 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York: Free Press.

Potts, C., 2008. fruITion: Creating the Ultimate Corporate Strategy for Information Technology illustrated edition., Technics Publications, LLC.

Ross, J.W., Weill, P. & Robertson, D.C., 2006. Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution illustrated edition., Harvard Business School Press.

Weill, P. & Ross, J., 2009. IT Savvy: What Top Executives Must Know to Go from Pain to Gain, Harvard Business School Press.

Weill, P. & Ross, J.W., 2004. IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results, Harvard Business School Press.

Weick, K.E., 2000. Making Sense of the Organization, WileyBlackwell.

The paper can be downloaded here or read at ISSUU.

The IGIA-Framework

During the summer of 2010 I worked with a literature review that basically dealt with how Enterprise Architecture (through Coherency Management) could be addressing the issue of rewiring the form of leadership which exists in the enterprise.

The IGIA-Framework is a form of synthesis of various theories within the field of corporate governance, IT strategy, IT governance, Workforce planning, Enterprise Architecture and Coherency Management.

The edition of the framework that is released with this blog post is advocating a big bang change approach which demands a lot of resources and a long term commitment. This will be altered with the next edition of the framework which I plan to release during 2011.

The IGIA-Framework needs to address the short turn achievements while using Enterprise Architecture and Coherency Management, and for that reason should the IGIA-Framework be evaluated and developed into a framework that can enable enterprises with gaining a better form of leadership, structure, architecture and not to forget a chance to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage.

With these words I publish “Integrated Governance: A Way to Achieve Competitive Advantage” the certified edition.

Download the literature review / IGIA – Framework here

The Future of Enterprise Architecture: Approaching the Next Generation Enterprise Architecture.

What Enterprise Architecture is Today

Enterprise Architecture origins from the Information Systems world as a form of documentation. The initial idea was known as Enterprise Information Architecture and was presented by John Zachman as way to make a blueprint of the IT usage in an enterprise. He claimed when working with a blueprint then it would be easier to make some form of coherent decisions.

This particular approach developed from what was seen as the Zachman checklist (typically a jargon applied by theorists within the TOGAF-framework.

What Enterprise Architecture Should Become

The question then becomes what Enterprise Architecture should become. There is potential in working with integrated governance. This means that enterprise architecture needs to evolve from being an IT centric approach to articulate and initiate projects that create alignment between IT and the business.

The most widely used generic framework is TOGAF that is developed and maintained by the OpenGroup, and it is only recently in version nine of the TOGAF-framework that the element of organization was added. This is a clear indicator that slowly but surely the concept of Enterprise Architecture starts to address other parts of the enterprise than IT.

In other words Enterprise Architecture should emphasize more on integrated governance that ensures that the enterprise is able to execute the strategy that has been articulated. The execution process will have to entail components of the enterprise like corporate capital planning, workforce planning,, security planning, IT planning & governance, supply chain management and innovation management. During the process of developing Enterprise Architecture there will probably come new issues the organizational aspect while the change is taking place, and therefore will have to become an evolutionary process that develops over time. This particular topic will be dealt with in the next section, and since it is a focus on persons, then it is very likely that the community that practice Enterprise Architecture would have to adjust and change their idea.

When speaking of organizational aspect and then the next generation of Enterprise Architecture has to address managing of virtual enterprises as well as the concept of Enterprise 2.0 .

How Enterprise Architecture Becomes Holistic

To enable enterprise architecture to move away from the IT-centric to become a holistic approach to integrated governance, then the progress will deal with embed management, organization and strategic approach into the enterprise architecture frameworks.

My definition of framework is a method that leads to integrated governance. The progress towards integrated governance is dealt with through enabling a holistic understanding of how the enterprise adapts to the understanding of how the enterprise works. The understanding can only be achieved if the enterprise organizes its findings in an enterprise wide repository that is visible for all actors in the enterprise.

The holistic management approach needs to address something that is classically been associated with change management and it is in many ways dealing with feelings and attitudes on collaboration among the various factors in the enterprise.

Enterprise Architecture is performed through a community of Enterprise professionals (in major complex enterprises), consultants who are loosely mingle with many different clients and not to forget academics and students who study and develops on enterprise architecture, and it is essentially these people who have to change their mindsets to address Enterprise Architecture in new ways and thereby develop the concept of Enterprise Architecture. As it is with science and theory so it is with diffusion of science and technology so it is with the diffusion of Enterprise Architecture. It rarely comes in revolutions and therefore it most likely will become an evolutionary process where case studies needs to be done and communicated.

Conclusion

In conclusion it is a necessity to go from IT centric designs as the primary approach has to be dealt with since it doesn’t lead to a particular competitive advantage, and since most problems the enterprise faces are systemic and not particular within the field of IT. Enterprise Architecture as a concept is compatible with thinking in systems and sense making and therefore is it likely that the future of Enterprise Architecture will be working with sense making and enterprise wide problems in the corporate strategy.

The transformation process is a hugh process with many obstacles, and it is for sure it will take time to handle the problems of change since it is an entire community that changes its mindset. The way to make the community change its mindset is through the various educational programs and through changes the ideas within the networks for Enterprise Architecture.

The primary problem will be changing the culture and the mindset of the practitioners of Enterprise Architecture, but the challenge is not impossible to cope with.

Appendix

Doucet, G. et al., 2009. Coherency Management: Architecting the Enterprise for Alignment, Agility and Assurance, International Enterprise Architecture Institute.

Mcafee, A., 2009. Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization’s Toughest Challenges, Harvard Business School Press.

Pasternack, B.A. & Viscio, A.J., 1998. The Centerless Corporation: Transforming Your Organization for Growth and Prosperity in the New Millennium, Simon & Schuster Ltd.